Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:28:44 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2 3/4] AUDIT: collect info when execve results in caps in pE |
| |
Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com): > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 10:35 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com): > > > diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c > > > index 8bb95ed..534abb5 100644 > > > --- a/security/commoncap.c > > > +++ b/security/commoncap.c > > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > > > */ > > > > > > #include <linux/capability.h> > > > +#include <linux/audit.h> > > > #include <linux/module.h> > > > #include <linux/init.h> > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > @@ -373,6 +374,9 @@ int cap_bprm_set_security (struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > > > > > void cap_bprm_apply_creds (struct linux_binprm *bprm, int unsafe) > > > { > > > + kernel_cap_t pP = current->cap_permitted; > > > + kernel_cap_t pE = current->cap_effective; > > > + > > > if (bprm->e_uid != current->uid || bprm->e_gid != current->gid || > > > !cap_issubset(bprm->cap_post_exec_permitted, > > > current->cap_permitted)) { > > > @@ -407,6 +411,12 @@ void cap_bprm_apply_creds (struct linux_binprm *bprm, int unsafe) > > > } > > > > > > /* AUD: Audit candidate if current->cap_effective is set */ > > > + if (!cap_isclear(current->cap_effective)) { > > > + if (!cap_issubset(current->cap_effective, CAP_FULL_SET) || > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > can you explain what the cap_issubset() check is for here? > > I'm glad you noticed it, because it is backwards! > > should be > > if (!cap_issubset(CAP_FULL_SET, current->cap_effective) || > > The idea is that I don't care to audit > 1) full set && > 2) this is root && > 3) root should have a full set
Cool, that makes sense.
Would you mind adding a trivial patch to your set commenting cap_issubset() in capability.h? If you feel it's too outside the scope of this set I'll send such separately. Every time I see code using it, it takes me 5 mins to remember which order they're supposed to be in...
> This would still consider a root without a full set because the bset had > been changed to be an interesting event. I'm fine with that. > > I'll send -v3 once I hear comments on everything else.... > > -Eric
thanks, -serge
| |